THEFT OF MONEYS

Otago Witness, Issue 3212, 6 October 1915, Page 84

THEFT OF MONEYS

R. S. MENZIES BEFORE THE COURT. PLEADS GUILTY TO TWO CHARGES. In the City Police Court on Sept. 29, Robert Sproule Monzies appeared, on remand, on two charges of theft ot moneys in connection with the insurance department of the firm of Neill and Co. Air IT. Y. Widdowson, S.AL, presided, and the accused was represented by Air Hay. Chief Detective Bishop prosecuted. The first charge was that on or about .May 14, 1914, the accused did steal £62 ss, the property of Neill and Co. ; and the second that, on or about January 31, 1912, being a servant of Neill and Co., he did commit the theft of £77 18s sd, the propert;/ of Neill and Co. At the commencement of the hearing of the first charge, two letters from the accused to Air P. C. Neill were put in. The first letter was dated August 22. This was a statement in which accused reviewed his transactions in respect of (1J the Union Insurance Company, as to which he admitted that declarations at lower rates than credited to head office had been accepted from Messrs Joseph Nathan and Co., and at times through them oh account of the National Dairy Association. Declarations at lower rates than credited to head office had also been accepted from A'lcssrs Laidlaw and Gray. (2) Guardian Assurance Company, us to which accused wrote that, so far as ho could remember, no payment had been received and no cheque had been drawn which had not been dealt with in the proper manner. Accused's statement concluded: —‘' 1 cannot give any reason ■why I accepted business at lower than regulation rates. 1 was hopeful that the rates could be increased at tlie end of the first season. ... I cannot offer any excuse for what I have done, and it is only the implicit trust placed in me by the heads of the firm that matters have not been brought to a head ere this. What I have done has been done in such a way that it was not likely to be noticed by either Mr Bridgeman or Mr Sydney Neill. I have tried in this memo, to give a complete statement, but at the present time it is hard for me to get my mind on to matters concerned. The loss of rest and sleep through worry—caused by my own misdeeds—and the fact that my position is quite unknown and suspected by my wife and family, have naturally unnerved me. I will, however, write anything else which occurs to me from time bo time. I can assure you, sir, that 1 quite appreciate the position in which I am placed, and I only hope that I shall have sufficient moral courage to see the thing through.” A subsequent letter to Air Neill was as follows;—•" 1 am afraid it is almost impossible for me to continue under present circumstances. Having had no sleep for practically a week, my mind is in such a state that it is almost impossible for me to do justice to the work 1 am trying to do. 1 quite recogn.se that it is my own fault, and that I must suffer, and this I am prepared to do. The present position, however, makes me fear for myself and makes me think that a drastic action would be better for my own sake. I suggest that I give instance or instances of where I have drawn cheques and used the money for other purposes; and that action should be taken against me. Even this would be no worse tnan the present position, and would protect me against myself.” Then followed a list of cheques cashed bv him: —No. 185, £37 11s lOd; No. 175, £B4" 4s 8d; No. 188, £SO 3s Sd; No. 194, £B3 lie 4d; No. 213, £238 12s lOd. ‘‘These cheques referred to,” wrote accused, were cashed, and the proceeds used by mo privately.” The first witness called by the prosecution was Percival Clay Neill, chairman of directors of the firm of Neill and Co., general merchants and insurance agents. He stated that the accused had been in his firm’s employ for over 10 years, and had boon manager of the insurance department during that period. He received a salary of £4OO a year, and usually received a bonus. On April 30 last year the accused brought into witness’s office a cheque for his signature. It was made out for £62 ss, and drawn on account of the Union Insurance Society of Canton, for whom Neill and Co. acted as agents. With this cheque there was a voucher, purporting to be for reinsurance, and payable to the Commercial Union Insurance Company, Dunedin. The voucher was returned to accused, and witness had not since seen it. The cheque was open, and was payable to 148, and made out in accused’s handwriting. On August 22 of this year the accused sent witness the first letter, which had been handed in in evidence.

In reply to Mr Hay, witness stated that, immediately any money was paid to the credit of the insurance company, Neill and Co. would have no power to operate on the account, except, of course, under their power of attorney, and then only in the name of the company. Neill and Co. had no knowledge of the appropriations set out in accused’s letter at the time it was received. He did not know that accused had assisted the firm in making out the charges preferred against him. Thomas Leslie Binney, insurance clerk in the employ of the Commercial Union Assurance Company, Dunedin, stated that the cheque produced, amounting to £62 ss, had never been received by the Commercial Union Company. To Mr Hay: The company had not received it in cash. This amount might have been paid to the company in other amounts. It might have been due when the cheque was drawn. Accused never paid in cash, but always by cheque. Rutherford Hargraves Stott, ledgerkeeper at the National Bank in Dunedin, gave evidence that the cheque produced waa cashed in May, 1914. He did not know who cashed it. Dotectivo-sergcant Kemp stated that he arrested the accused on the 13th inst. on another charge. When arrested he had said nothing in connection with this or any other charge.

This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Hay stated that there did not seem to be any case made out in connection with tho charges before the court. His instructions were that the accused in this particular case committed tho theft of properties belonging to his employer. Under section 247 of the Criminal Code Act, subsection (b), a servant who committed a theft of property belonging to his employer was liable to 14 years’ hard labour. The facts disclosed that the accused had not stolen anything from his employers, but from the Union Insurance Society of Canton. He had been instructed to plead “Guilty*’ to the charges, but, in view of the evidence, he did not feel

disposed to do so to a charge that was not homo out by facts.

After further argument it was agreed that this point should stand over in order that i 0 , n l ia ß' s t l ' a to should decide what charge should bo preferred against the. accused. Alter the luncheon adjournment the Magistrate said he had considered the point mentioned by Mr Hay in the morning, and uas of opinion that it was a very technical one. He thought that the information should bo laid in the name of the insurance company.

Mr Hay replied that it was not of very much importance to him. There was a largo number of informations against accused, so that the judge would have ample opportunity to inflict such penalties as he might think fit, but the point which ho (counsel) wished to emphasise was that ho did not want to plead guilty to something which the depositions would not support.

The Superintendent pointed out that a bailee might prosecute in his own name. The Magistrate decided to alter the charges to read that accused, being the servant of Neill and Co., stole sums mentioned, they being the properties of the respective insurance companies-—namely, the Union Insurance Society of Canton and the Indemnity Mutpal Marine Insurance Company.

The second charge was then proceeded with

Percival Clay Neill stated that ho remembered January 31, 1912, when the accused brought to him the cheque produced, made out for £77 18s sd, for his signature, drawn on the Indemnity Mutual Marino Insurance Company, and on the Bank of Australasia, Dunedin, Witness’s firm were agents and attorneys for this company. The cheque was made out by the accused. There was a voucher with the cheque purporting to bo for reinsurance with the British Dominion Insurance Company. The money belonged to Neill and Co. subject to the squaring of accounts. The Magistrate stated that he was satisfied at the present time these moneys belonged to the Insurance Company. John Challis' (ledger keeper at the Bank of New Zealand, Dunedin) stated that the cheque produced was lodged to the credit of .the accused on February 1, 1912, and presented to the Bank of Australasia on the following day, when it was paid. James Henry Duncan (manager of 11. L. Tapley’s insurance department, Dunedin) stated that in 1912 Mr Tapley was the agent for the British Dominion General Insurance Company in New Zealand. On January 31; 1912. the Indemnity Mutual Marine Insurance Company owed the British Dominion Company £315 16s Bd. On February 29, 1912, they received a cheque from the Indemnity Mutual Marine Insurance Company for £193 Is 3d, and on April 18, 1912, they received another cheque from this company for £122 15s sd. These two amounts made up the total sum owing on January 12. The cheque for £77 18s 5d had never been received by the British Dominion Company. Frederick Orlando Bridgcman (a director of the firm of Neill and 00., Dunedin) said he had signed the two cheques mentioned by the last witness on having them presented to him by the accused. They were payable to the British Dominion Insurance Company, and were for reinsurance due to that company. He did not know at the time that the accused had already got Mr Neill to sign a cheque for £77 18s sd. These cheques were drawn upon an account opened by Neill and 00. in the Bank of Australasia on a power of attorney. To Mr Hay: Witness had most to do with the management of Neill and Co.’s business. Ho was not in charge of the insurance department. The firm depended upon the accused as manager. The accused received £4OO a year as salary, and last year he got a bonus of £2O, and the four previous years he received four special bonuses of £SO. The department did a good deal of business. He had no idea of the income of the department, nor could he say if either of the other directors knew. He was not at all surprised to know that the gross premium income amounted to £20,000 a year. Ho saw a letter Bom the accused stating that he had misappropriated moneys. He knew a day or two prior to the receipt of these letters that there had been dishonesty on the part of the accused. The accused remained in Neill and Co.’s employ up till the day of his arrest and assisted in some clerical work, but did not assist in clearing up irregularities; in fact, he further entangled matters. Neill and Co. acted for two insurance companies during the cast 12 months, and up till the end of 1912 Urey were agents for the Indemnity Mutual Marine Company. The head office of each of these offices was in foreign parts. xhe returns for these companies were supposed to be monthly, and would include the statement of accounts between Neill and Co. and the companies, and also vouchers. No local audit was made of these monthly returns. They depended upon the head offices of the companies to find out any discrepancies. Discrepancies were pointed out by the head offices, but they nevpr came into the hands of their principals, and ho suggested that these letters had been intercepted by the accused. So far as he knew these discrepancies had been going on since 1912, and the letters pointing them out had been intercepted since then. The firm had no independent check upon the local office, and relied upon the accused. It was a fact t-iat the accused had been insuring at less than the tariff rates, and had been accounting to the head office for these insurances at full rates. In order to balance his books he had been putting in items which were not accurate. He did not receive any commission on the work done. The accused was assisted by a boy, and had the services of a typist. ‘Apart altogether from the _ dishonesty, the books would have been in a muddle. The only apparent explanation for insuring at lower rates was the accused’s desire to get business. The discrepancies mentioned were discovered by the head office of each company, and were contained in the monthly accounts sent forward to the head offices. These had been falsified and appeared on paper to bo correct. A representative of the Union of Canton visited the office last year, and the representative of the Guardian Office paid visits periodically throughout the year. When the accused started in Neill and Oo.’s employ he received £l5O a year. At that time the income was about £2OOO or £SOOO a year. To the Magistrate: The accused had been responsible to a great extant for working up the business to what it was now. In answer to the usual charge the accused pleaded guilty to both charges, and was committed to the Supremo Court for sentence.